-
Not allowed to pick and choose clients.
Really? That's interesting. So you're not allowed to consider 'reputational damage', or is such a thing not as relevant in light of not being able to choose clients?
(for example, finance here, we have a long list of clients (countries even) we can't deal with due to potential reputational problems).
christianSpaceman-
Really? That's interesting.
Look up the "cab rank rule"
Summary here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cab-rank_rule
Edit: I don't think many people know about this. You often see people on Twitter judging a barrister on who they have represented before as if there is any choice in the matter.
My Dad ended up quitting criminal law because of the emotional strain caused by putting huge amounts of effort into defending somebody who had comitted the most despicable crimes. He just wasn't cut out for it. Kept him awake at night. Probably still does.
-
So you're not allowed to consider 'reputational damage',
Nope, strictly verboten.
or is such a thing not as relevant in light of not being able to choose clients?
It shouldn't be relevant but has Stonehedge says I suspect most people aren't aware of the cab rank rule. Dominic Raab, for instance, in his recent criticisms of a Hong Kong QC.
-
Really? That's interesting. So you're not allowed to consider 'reputational damage'
There should be no reputational damage. People have a right to legal representation. Making sure their case is properly argued is a necessity of the legal system. Within the legal profession this is well understood, also among the saner parts of society.
The legal professionals who have damaged their reputation in Trump's defence did so because of the way they behaved while they were doing it, not for the basic fact of acting on his behalf.
Stonehedge
Brommers
itsbruce
None needed, you're right. If a client can meet my fees, not only would I act for them, I'd be professionally obliged to do so. Not allowed to pick and choose clients.